It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2nd Carrier Arrives Off Straits Of Hormuz

page: 17
28
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


Carriers are big warm targets on the open sea, that are easy to discriminate against its background, the carrier cannot hide under rocks. Guidance systems take multiple things into account, did someone tell you that they do not have any guidance systems? Who told you this little lie. They manufacture a lot of their own missiles, which have to have guidance systems.




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MushroomWig
 


Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

- John Adams


I know you wish that USA maybe weak and beatable, but that is just simply not the case. Get use to disappointment. USA and its military will be alive and well long after you and I are gone.





posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


LOL

You think these Carriers travel by themself? lol lol lol All by them selves?
I love ATS.

I can always find comedy in every post.

In all seriousness. Ever hear of the word "FLEET"?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 





Originally posted by snowcrash911
Yes, let's read the article carefully. Let's start with the headline, and go from there.


Royal Navy sends its mightiest ship to take on the Iranian show of force in the Gulf


The headline is composed by the Daily Telegraph's defense correspondent, Thomas Harding. Apparently Thomas Harding, who is a defense correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, thinks HMS Daring isn't just steaming towards the Gulf for #s and giggles, it's to "take on the Iranian show of force".


So according to that headline, we shall expect to see the destroyer actively taking on those Iranian ships participating in the recent military excercises when it arrives then. I can't wait for my government to explain that in the U.N council chambers! But, like you say, Thomas Harding says so, so it must be true.




Strike one.


Naval commanders? Who are they exactly? Local fishermen with an opinion? Why doesn't he say Royal Navy commanders? Is it because, as per usual, he's talking out of his rear end? Or is it SOP, that the Royal Navy command, regularly consults Thomas Harding on the routines of the Royal Navy which he is then free to report in his paper? As a journalist, he wouldn't be looking for a sensationalist headline would he? surely not.




Strike two/Strike three


Exactly, and your point is? It will be going to the straits to police them and make sure they remain open. When a foreign government threatens to close them to you, it would be idiotic not to send the best equipment possible, to ensure they remain open. Does this mean war is imminent? I would say it is even further away, as Iran would be even more idiotic to start it!



Strike four/Strike five.


Key words being "If Required". Again I fail to see your point. Does this mean war is imminent?



Strike six

Good job Lord West doesn't dictate British Foreign policy then isn't it! You do know he's retired now, yes? So your point is?





Followed by the final paragraph you so pathetically quote mined:


An MoD spokesman said: "While the newly operational Type 45 destroyer HMS Daring is more capable than earlier ships, her deployment East of Suez has been long planned, is entirely routine and replaces a frigate on station."


Wow... You mentioned reading... how about reading the entire article, interpreting the context, instead of quote mining it to distort its clear, unequivocal, intended, stated meaning that the deployment of HMS Daring isn't happening in some kind of geopolitical vacuum?

You are.... pedantic and willfully ignorant in a very amusing way.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the deployment of HMS Daring is seen as military posturing by the Daily Telegraph's defense expert as well as multiple naval sources, the Secretary of Defense and a former First Sea Lord, with the accompanying war rhetoric, in an ongoing standoff over a possible blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

You are in denial, "smart guy".


Please, in that whole article, quote me one Royal Navy Source - please. I've seen "naval commanders" and "navy source", who's to say he isn't making it up as he goes along as per usual? This ship is going to the straits to participate in the policing, that Britain is obliged to do. There are quite a few countries that have vessels there, and they've been there for years, to make sure the straits remain open. When a country threatens to close it, it makes sense to send the best you have, to make sure they remain open. There will be no war unless 1. Iran makes a really silly decision or 2. You start seeing mass propaganda by western media outlets.

The only official source, relating to the destroyer, was from the MoD, which clearly states (and contrary to what Mr Harding writes) what the destroyer's role will be when it arrives. The rest is mis-quoted or quite frankly, made up BS to sell a story. He didn't even quote the defence secretary correctly. Look up his words at the Atlantic Council, and you will see what he said in the context it was menat to be read/heard.

So after 6 strikes (well 8, if you count your opening and closing statements) you fail to hit a single "ball". How embarrasing for you!

Stop being sensationalist. And please don't call me ignorant. Ever heard about the plank in ones own eye and the speck in ones brothers?
edit on 12-1-2012 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


I have heard of fleet, and the entire fleet can carry so many defensive measures after which they are exhausted. A salvo of a thousand missiles will saturate any fleet defenses no matter how many US flags you fly on your ship.

Also some information on the AN/SPY-1 Radar on the Aegis ships:

STRENGTHS

* ANSPY-1 multifunction, phased array, fire control quality radar.
* Very rapid transition from SPY-1 silent to full radiate and full situational awareness.
* Fast reaction, fully/semiautomatic combat systems. Initial detection to first missile movement in less than 10 sec.
* Salvo rate of less than 2 sec per launcher (CG-52 and above with MK 41 VLS)
* Mix of multiple SMs.
* Max field of fire and min blockage zones
* Must illuminate target only for a short duration prior to intercept.
* AN/SPY-1 radar variable sensitivity feature allowing radar sensitivity to be tailored to threat RCS, environment, and tactical situation.
* Weapons &ID doctrine capable of automatic and semiautomatic response/action.
* Doctrine software assists w/ ID

WEAKNESSES

* The system is designed for blue water and littoral operations however AN/SPY-1 configuration must be modified to look above the terrain to avoid causing excessive false targets from land clutter. These configuration changes may increase ship susceptibility to low and fast targets.
* Once a target is engaged and the initial salvo fired, WCS will not allow the target to be reengaged (second salvo) until a kill evaluation has been completed.
* AN/SPY-1 antenna height is lower than the AN/SPS-49 radar system resulting in reduced radar horizon.
* DDG-51 Class are not equipped with a AN/SPS-49 radar (no secondary air search radar)
* Must hold an AN/SPY-1 track. Cannot engage on a remote or AN/SPS-49 track unless equipped with CEC.

edit on 12-1-2012 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by kellynap43
USA and its military will be alive and well long after you and I are gone.




Will they now? Actually, from all the indicators there won't be much of them around after 2023.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Its not just Iran, Israel or Syria could blink first. The US is waiting, the ships are like saying I dare You to Iran. Now, is it wise to make the first move. It might be, because if Iran moves first We have a lot of US lives that could be lost.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by kellynap43
USA and its military will be alive and well long after you and I are gone.




Will they now? Actually, from all the indicators there won't be much of them around after 2023.


Indicators? 2023? Please explain



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


All of your posts are made on the presumption that Iran will attack the foreign Navies situated in the gulf. What your posts fail to point out, is how utterly stupid it would be for Iran to attack those navies.

They would lose all of the international support they have. It would give the U.S and other leading western countries the green light, to utterly destroy them, with no reprisals. Iran does not have an indefinite supply of missiles.

Do you really think Iran would be so stupid?
edit on 12-1-2012 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


You underestimate Iran's ability to defend her self. Iran has a full fighting professional Army a Airforce and a Navy with destroyers such as the Jamaran and 3 Kilo class submarines, multiple missile sites. I think Iran would do everything in there power to repel a foreign invasion force.
edit on 12-1-2012 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)


Oh boy! Another Shock and Awe series on CNN. The "Mother of all Battles" rerun.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge
reply to post by thelastlineofwhat
 


Our Carriers can take multiple hits from them. The only thing that can sink one is a nuclear weapon right on her deck or from under by torpedo. Iran simply has no chance of sinking one.


I wonder what China has to say about their Oil getting cut off?
I do believe they can do one from under.
Link.......
wakeupfromyourslumber.com...

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge
reply to post by thelastlineofwhat
 


Our Carriers can take multiple hits from them. The only thing that can sink one is a nuclear weapon right on her deck or from under by torpedo. Iran simply has no chance of sinking one.


I wonder what China has to say about their Oil getting cut off?
I do believe they can do one from under.
Link.......
wakeupfromyourslumber.com...

Regards, Iwinder


The funny thing about this whole thread is people saying China will be siding with Iran.

If you look at what China is saying, you will see that they too are getting mightily pissed off with Iran's posturing and tub thumping. Themselves and Japan (Irans 2 biggest oil consumers) are readily considering cutting back their oil purchases from Iran.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
My knowledge of US military deployment routines is quite lacking, and i hope to spur discussion by asking the following:
- what kind of precedent has their been in similar situations that could give us clues to the true nature of the US carriers deployment?
-What unprecedented actions could we see in the near future in terms of militeristic posturing?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by kellynap43
USA and its military will be alive and well long after you and I are gone.




Will they now? Actually, from all the indicators there won't be much of them around after 2023.


Can anyone answer why the US military wont be around in 2023? Anyone have an idea of the indicators this gentlemen is talking about?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhn7537

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by kellynap43
USA and its military will be alive and well long after you and I are gone.




Will they now? Actually, from all the indicators there won't be much of them around after 2023.


Can anyone answer why the US military wont be around in 2023? Anyone have an idea of the indicators this gentlemen is talking about?


I don't even know what's in my lunchbox tomorrow, so 2023....well I won't go there, but I have no clue! Sorry.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Remember HMS Sheffield?


Yes, I do. The ship had no CIWS, in fact, there was none whatsoever on any of the ships in 1982. It was the Falklands War that highlighted the need for such systems. The only defence against the Exocet attacks the Task Force had was the Harriers.


Originally posted by snowcrash911
Britain suffered substantial Naval losses during the Falklands War...demonstrating that technical superiority isn't everything.


In fact, you are unintentionally proving that with your own example. The Argentines technically had the edge with the (then) very advanced Exocet to which the British had no defence. We still won, though, despite that technological defficiency.


Originally posted by snowcrash911
Without the support of the United States Britain doesn't have much geopolitical/military clout on its own, save for its nuclear submarine fleet. The UK's primary strength is its alliance with the US, which just so happens to be the aggressor in this conflict.


Actually, we do. As one of the top economies in the world, a centre for global finance (soon to be the only place outside of China where their currency can be traded), our cutting edge tech (without the UK there would be no smart phones) and a leading military power, I think we have plenty of clout.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


After December 7, 1941 (FYI- Attack on Pearl Harbor)

No one has destroyed a US naval fleet. And you’re suggesting that a country such as Iran has the inventory, technology, to do so?

Let’s play your fantasy out. Let’s say they did sink a carrier, or a fleet. What would happen next? I imagine you would like to picture the US curled in a ball crying. What history tells us is just the opposite. The US citizens would become "united", motivated and determined. If Iran was stupid enough to place that attack, funding to the military would increase, enlistments would increase, military technology and research and production would increase, and on and on. Magnifying the super power that the USA already is.

So your point being?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher

Originally posted by Iwinder

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge
reply to post by thelastlineofwhat
 


Our Carriers can take multiple hits from them. The only thing that can sink one is a nuclear weapon right on her deck or from under by torpedo. Iran simply has no chance of sinking one.


I wonder what China has to say about their Oil getting cut off?
I do believe they can do one from under.
Link.......
wakeupfromyourslumber.com...

Regards, Iwinder


The funny thing about this whole thread is people saying China will be siding with Iran.

If you look at what China is saying, you will see that they too are getting mightily pissed off with Iran's posturing and tub thumping. Themselves and Japan (Irans 2 biggest oil consumers) are readily considering cutting back their oil purchases from Iran.


Have you got a link for that statement? I would like to read up on China not wanting the Iranian oil.
Kind of sounds like the old news of China getting pissed with North Korea here on the MSM.....nothing came of it.
Plus I see that there is no comments on the link I provided that proves without a doubt China can toast any ship in the straight they deem a threat to their interests.

snip
ninvited guest: A Chinese Song Class submarine, like the one that sufaced by the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

Now lets not leave Russia out of the equation here either........
Regards, iwinder



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
 


The current cuts in defense bill that obama signed will go out until year 2023. ITs like 400 billion in cuts over 11 years.


I think this is what he is referring too. Could be wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join